----------
> Van: Paul Bennett <Paul.Bennett@...>
>=20
> <<<<<<
> I mean a syllabic uvular nasal (IPA /N/, as opposed to ASCII-IPA /N/,
IIRC), or
> further back, if such a thing is possible.
>=20
> The lang first came to me as belonging to a species where the respirato=
ry
and
> digestive tracts do not fully join, but are only seperated by
(effectively) an
> extension of the soft pallette. The uvular nasal is an attempt by a
human vocal
> system to re-create this system.
Sounds neat! Now I see why there are no consonants other than clicks.
Since you asked if it was too weird for a human language, I was thinking =
of
human points of articulation.
Why don't you opt for more points of articulation. They are aliens anyway
..
> >>>>>>
> > with several tones, simultaneous clicks, and an open...closed,
> rounded/unrounded distinction
> > in lip position.
> Can a word has just one tone? Or can the nasal (since it is syllabic)
have
> e tone of its own?
> <<<<<<
> "Yes", and "Huh?" in that order.
If nasals are/can be a syllable on their own, then they can have a tone o=
f
their own.
Take a look at Quiotepec Chinantec:
m?1 'ant' (? =3D glottal stop, 1 =3D tone)
m:23 'sandal' (: =3D ;length)
hm?3 'tomato'
?m:3m?4 'you pinch'
m:42m?m24 we (excl.) pinch'
That's what I meant.
But your words are nasal and just nasal. So you can have one tone only in
your word.
I hope I'm clear on this, but probably I am not.=20
> >>>>>>
> What is the difference between front and back retroflex? I thought ther=
e
is
> only one retroflex point of articulation?
> <<<<<<
> To me, a normal (or "front") retroflex has the tip of the tongue hittin=
g
what
> feels likea point near the middle of the palette. For a "back"
retroflex, curl
> the tip of the tongue as far back as you possibly can (while still bein=
g
able to
> produce a click). In fact, having tried it a few times, I think a clic=
k
is the
> only phone I'm capable of producing at that POA. To me, the difference
> (pronounced in a 0 environment) is that a back-retroflex click sounds
noticably
> lower in pitch.
>=20
I tried it. It worked, but I was happy there was no one else in the room
(what would they have thought I was doing?)
> Words are likely to end up mono- or bi-syllabic. The {w} shows that th=
e
lips
> should be rounded throughout the syllable. As noted below, the
lip-shaping is
> more of a "color" to the nasal, rather than a vowel in it's own right.=20
The
> romanisation is designed to closely reflect a "functional" native scrip=
t
(ie one
> that works like Hangul) that is only roughly formed thusfar.
> > Lip shapes:
> > Basically, (from close to open, as unrounded) the shapes are {i,e,u,a=
}
> followed by {w} to show rounding.
> >
It makes me think of Adyge. In Adyge there are three vowels: i- (barred i=
),
@ and a. So the only distinction is the openness, just as in m"/21aw. You
could make a system like this:
rounded unrounded
=FC i
=F6 e
o E
a A
>=20
> >>>>>>
> <<<<<<
> That's about what I figured. The only simultaneous click is of a
bilabial click
> plus any other click, which is literally simultaneous. I dont see how
your
> examples of !=3D and =3D! would be different to each other?
There are not. Slip of the finger!
=20
> > What about a ritual or secret lang? (I
> > guess _nothing_ is too weird to be a secret lang??)
> I agree. See Damin for that!
> <<<<<<
> Damin? I'll go look it up in a bit more detail. URLs?
>=20
I can find it anymore! Once I read about it. It is an Australian language=
s
used by men. It is the only language that has a *pulmonic ingressive* sou=
nd
attested. It is written as L. Just make the ll as in Welsh, but then
breathe in very heavily.
Rob